Mentally Ill Victims Of Sexual Assault Require More Protection By The Society; Bombay HC Denies Relief To Man Convicted U/S.377 [Read Judgment]

Justice Mridula Bhatkar was hearing the criminal revision application filed by Ramchandra Yadav, who has already undergone 4.5 years of his sentence. The court noted that a mentally ill person requires more protection from society and refused to show any leniency in the case.

Case Background

According to the prosecution, on June 24, 2012, the victim left his house along with his friend to go to Siddhivinayak temple. Thereafter, the victim received a phone call from the applicant accused, who is a family friend, saying that he is alone at his office and asked the victim to come to him. So, the victim went to the accused's office in Kalbadevi. Then, the accused removed the victim's trousers and committed sexual intercourse with him.

After this, the accused took the victim to Chowpatty to meet his brother and he told the victim that the accused would be going soon to his native place and in his absence, he should allow his brother to do some things with the victim. The victim refused to do so. The accused then dropped the victim at his home. The victim informed his mother and subsequently, an FIR was filed and the accused was arrested.

Medical examination of the victim confirmed that he was subjected to forceful sexual intercourse. The trial judge referred to a report by the mental health expert team of JJ Hospital. In the report, it was stated that the victim was suffering from "mild mental retardation with IQ = 55 and the mental age of the victim was 8 years."

Thereafter, the trial court sentenced the accused to seven years and the Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the sentence.

Judgment

Justice Bhatkar refused to accept the arguments on behalf of the accused seeking leniency:

"On the point of leniency, I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant/accused. It is an offence of having sexual intercourse with person having a mild mental retardation with less IQ who in fact required to be given the more protection by the Society.

On the point of leniency, the nature of offence, gravity, victim's age condition, social conditions and also the conduct of the accused etc. are taken into consideration. In the present case, the accused after committing the act, has introduced the victim to his brother and told victim that you will satisfy the lust of my brother also. The accused knew the victim well prior to the incident and therefore by taking advantage of the mental condition of the victim raped him. I do not find any mitigating circumstance in this case to reduce the sentence. Hence, no leniency is shown."

Thus, the sentence was confirmed and the revision application was dismissed.

Read the Judgment Here